Public Safety Committee on Dec. 14th, 2021

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to confirm that this will mean we'll have six meetings total for this study. I just want confirmation that it is sufficient in Ms. Michaud's opinion and that this is the aim or the result of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Clerk, is that the right math?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

It's seven, I guess, including this Thursday.

Thank you, Dane.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

There are seven meetings in total? Okay.

Does that answer your question, Ms. Dancho?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I believe so. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments on the proposed amendment from Ms. Damoff, just to do with deadlines?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I've been in this place for a few years, but maybe somebody who has more experience here might know better. If we were to table the report in the House by the end of March, how much time does that give the government to reply to the report? Would that be replied to before the House ends for the summer, or would that come in the fall when the House reconvenes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Clerk, do you have an answer to that?

[The Clerk]

Yes, sir. It's 120 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Now there's a clear answer.

Therefore, when you do your math, it's the end of March and then another four months. It would probably take us into the summer break, wouldn't it? Is my math correct that 120 days after the end of March takes us into the summer? I think that's the right math.

Are there other comments in response to Ms. Damoff's last amendment?

Do we have unanimous consent to accept the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Excellent.

Thank you very much, everybody.

There are no other amendments to vote on. Now we have the whole thing. Now we go back and vote on the whole thing.

Is there unanimous consent to approve the series of subamendments and the amendment?

Ms. Damoff, do you have your hand up?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

No. I'm sorry, Chair. It's a thumbs-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

It's a distinction between a hand up and the thumbs-up that chairs have to pay a lot of attention to.

Do we have unanimous consent to pass the motion as amended?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Very good. Excellent work, committee, excellent work. What I saw here was the spirit of compromise ending up in a place that expresses a common aspiration, and that's great. I'm very pleased.

Mr. MacGregor, do you have a hand up?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

This is very quick. I want to move the motion that I distributed to committee members earlier this week. It's a very simple motion.

Just to give you some background, in the previous Parliament the public safety committee produced quite a comprehensive report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. The purpose of my motion is to readopt that report and have the chair retable it in the House of Commons in this Parliament so that we may elicit a government response.

I'm going to make a slight amendment to it, because I think there is a part that's not necessary. I'm going to read it into the record so committee members understand what I'm doing. It goes as follows, Mr. Chair.

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of systemic racism in policing in Canada;

That the evidence and documentation received by the committee during the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament on the subject be taken into consideration by the committee in the current session;

That the committee adopt the report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada” adopted during the 2nd Session of the 43rd Parliament;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request the government to table a comprehensive response to the report;

That the Chair present the report to the House.

For committee members, what I've done is delete the part that asks for dissenting or supplementary opinions, because I believe all members provided those and they're already part of the report and I don't think we need to revisit it.

Mr. Clerk, I hope that's in order and that it reads clearly. I'll leave it at that for any comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much. I think it was clear.

I will open the floor for commentary from members.

Ms. Damoff, I see your hand is up.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I had another motion, Chair.

I'm good to support this one. This is an excellent motion from the opposition, because that was an outstanding report that we did, and it's important that the government respond to it. I fully support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Let's do it one at a time. Let's deal with the motion that's on the table.

Is there other commentary?

[The Clerk]

Madame Michaud is first, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We have Madame Michaud, followed by Ms. Dancho.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague Mr. MacGregor for this motion.

As Ms. Damoff said, this is a report that we worked hard on, in the last session. It is only right that we get a response from the government.

I just have a question about a word in the first sentence, which bothers me: “Que [...] le comité entreprenne une étude...”, while in English it says “undertake”. It's like saying that the committee is going to do a study on systemic racism again.

So, I would just like a clarification on that word. I don't know what the intention was behind it, but I just want to make sure that this motion says, finally, that we are sending it back to the House to get a response from the government, but that the committee is not taking up a new study on systemic racism.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. MacGregor, can you clarify that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I've looked at the ways a number of committees have done these types of motions before, and there is a little bit of variance. We got the format for this particular motion from a clerk at the immigration committee. I think that in order for the chair to retable the report, we first have to undertake the study. It's basically a formality.

I'm not asking for us to re-engage in this study; it's just to allow the chair to take the necessary steps to adopt a report and retable it. I don't want to spend any more time than is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Clerk, I see a thumbs-up from you. That means this is the way it's done and it does not require further study. It's just a matter of semantics. Is that right?

[The Clerk]

Yes, sir. I concur with Mr. MacGregor.